Besides, money isn't everything. There is something to be said for not having to deal with the insane evangelicals, bitter uneducated whites, and insane levels of violence too. Not to mention the impact this will have on the SCOTUS, and how incredibly screwed up healthcare is.
Just live your life and be happy, vote when you can but don't let what you don't control make you sad.
These things don't matter until they really, really, really do. Having seen the grass on both sides of the fence, I can attest that it really can be meaningfully greener.
We just let them do it because we (collective we) have grown so used to having it we can't remember what it was like before, people dying from treatable conditions because they couldn't afford it, average life expectancy been a whole decade lower (or more) etc.
We (again collective) won't realise what we had until it's gone.
That's public money going to the private sector for no real benefit.
Like Obamas presidency. For every good he's done or tried to do, all the shit in the world that affects the US (and even things that are not real apparently) gets pinned on him, regardless of cause.
And sure, Obamacare probably has a lot of faults, but is that because of its concept, because of congressional gridlock, or compromises?
I won't argue either way, but it's always sad when something gets dismantled or at least scolded for reasons outside of its grasp.
I don't know enough about NHS to say, but spending £600M/year on management consultants doesn't sound like a healthcare problem.
I'm not religious, but it's the same with Islam being lumped together with extremists, Christianity being lumped in with crusades and westboro baptists and other lunatics, and both republicans and liberals being categorized by a few vocal idiots.
Sometimes you have to try to look objectively at something and the faults alongside it, and try to determine if they are one and the same. Sometimes it's worth fighting to improve something instead of just burning it to the ground, because there's a good chance the new foundation being built is worse than what you destroyed.
In the US, as I say, this would not have been covered by my insurance, and would have cost around $50,000 to fix. Completely infeasible for me to find that amount of money. The NHS did an excellent job of fixing it for free.
I wonder how is that possible? Insurance plans these days have to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition, even the cheapest plans cover everything after a deductible, unless I am missing something
I don't think the Republicans have enough people in the Senate to block filibusters. So I assume the Democrats will use the filibuster to block repeals of the healthcare law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/the-future-of-obama...
Boom. Now Obamacare can be repealed with simple majority. I bet you dollars to donuts that insurance prices, however, will not go back down to pre-Obamacare prices. Because profits.
Sounds simplistic but if you look at the system as a whole, ask who its benefitting the most, doesnt seem to be the electorate.
We have the same problem in the UK, it got us Brexit and you folks Trump.
As Michael Moore said when he predicted a trump win, "It's the biggest fuck you they can send".
Average rent ranges from $500-$3600/mth though for illustrative purposes (taking into account people in expensive places share) let's use $1K/mth for our hypothetical person. [3]
That leaves you with $16K/yr (male) and $7K/yr (female) for food, transportation and incidental expenses.
Obamacare backed health plans have a maximum out-of-pocket of $7K/yr for individuals.
Yeah, I'd say the median American is pretty much SOL if they get sick even if they have insurance. And those figures don't take into account the price of the insurance itself if your employer elects not to provide it to you.
In the UK your NHS annual out-of-pocket maximum is $0.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
[2] https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator
[3] http://mentalfloss.com/article/81296/average-cost-one-bedroo...
[4] https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
US median individual wage is $39K/yr for males and $26.5K/yr for females [1]. That amounts to an after-total-tax (for a California resident) of $28K/yr for males and $19K/yr for females.
The tax calculator you reference includes estimates of sales, property, and fuel taxes (which make up much of the tax total at the incomes here), which are actually rolled into rent, transportation, and general purchases, so you are double counting some expenses.
At least the standard employment sponsored plans.
I thought my first (awful) plan had a benefit limit, as in you're getting a maximum of $1.25M from us, regardless of what happens.
My family has easily hit the pre-Obamacare lifetime coverage limits and fairly frequently would've hit the annual ones. Our $4k out-of-pocket cap saves us from 10-50k in coinsurance/copays depending on the year. As a result, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they could.
Soon, it looks like they'll be able to.
Based on what? You are just speculating now
This is a huge deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC - aka "Companies are people and money is free speech"
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
By what specific mechanism could a Trump presidency cause them to lose access to birth control or abortion?
The trend in the House and Senate and many state governments since 2008 is far more concerning to me than Trump's election.
Trump also doesn't seem to have much of a view at all, during campaign he expressed one thing and its opposite multiple times, he craves attention and acceptance and if the GOP does that (and lets him enact the petty revenges he's know for) I don't expect he'll have any issue enacting evangelical policies. Hell, he explicitly stated he'd leave the presidential busywork to his VP.
Did you forget that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate until 2011? In fact, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until February of 2010.
See Currier:
- http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/currier-v-jackson...
- https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/01/mississippi-abortion-cli...
Also see Whole Woman's Health:
- http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-heal...
- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abo...
Live somewhere like CA? Hard to see the state government or Supreme Court rolling things back too terribly. Health insurance if you don't have a good job would be a big question mark, would be nice to see the state pick that up.
Live in a state where the legislature is inclined to pass laws against your sexuality, religion, etc? That's a much more vulnerable position.
IMO a much larger problem than Trump is the structural favoritism in the American political system towards less-populated areas. This has a lot to do with how Obama's last term was largely sabotaged as well, after all.
Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind.
Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system?
Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done.
(And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
So much for any of their projections. The actual popular vote difference is 202,340 -- less than 0.17% of votes cast.
Thomas Jefferson
I mean, unless you're incredibly wealthy, and don't care about anyone else at all.
And with the ability to set a Justice and a party dominated House and Senate, it does not look very good for "checks and balances" over the next 4 years.
And that of course assumes you're not subject to deportation for whatever reason. If Trump keeps any of his campaign promises we will be seeing many people forced out of the country. No idea what the extent of that will be, and at least some people here are first generation and claim to be anchors.
If you move, please reach out. We'll be glad to welcome you!
I'm a Danish citizen, with the fiancé being a US citizen - and my understanding is that it wouldn't be easy for us to live in Denmark due to us having an unreasonable burden in demonstrating attachment to Denmark vs the US (https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/07/nye-regler-famili...) --- and with the president-elect having talked about pausing legal immigration for 1-2 years it makes for pretty scary times as my employer currently is applying for PERM status for me (meaning things could be paused randomly by the president - and with no where for us to go but maybe Canada/other European countries)
In regards to your visa in the US, I think you should just wait it out. I doubt it'll get paused overnight, since the business impacts would be too great.
That lasted 6 months, and she now has a big group of friends consisting of expats/danes.
Job opportunities are very good, especially if you work within healthcare, engineering or similar fields. There's a shortage in the workforce for highly qualified workers.
If that's OK with you, then go for it.
In NYC I can do a normal sit down lunch at $40 multiple times a week, without really batting an eye - whereas that would be painful in Denmark - on the plus side you usually have catered lunch which quality, choice and taste wise is not nearly as good, but significantly cheaper and with it being better for team work within the company.
For health care you should expect longer lines and significant delays in case you have a non-urgent issue; whereas that in NYC is something you can handle easily by setting up an appointment on Zocdoc so that you can see a specialist the next day - with it being covered by your health insurance.
On a NYC tech salary I tend to buy gadgets / items as often as I want, if the cost is below maybe $200, in Denmark that threshold is more like $60.
Vacation policies are generally substantially better in Denmark; and workload also being significantly lower.
Pros and cons
What is it you feel you need to wait for?
Also, in regards to salary: Yes, it's lower overall. But it's still high, especially in the tech sector. I get paid roughly the same as my US counterparts (we have offices in Copenhagen and New York).
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/05391733140/denma...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/europe/denmark-vote-jewelry-bi...
Suffice to say not exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom for all. But it might work for white techno elites for whom being not in US/UK and writing web apps is all they want.
It's also the same if you get government benefits. If your wealth exceeds 10.000 DKK, you will have to use your own money to get by, until you run out.
That said, any in that line up will be a bit of a culture shock coming from the US.
Source: I'm Dutch and moved to Sweden
Source: Scottish, moved to Finland.
(Biggest pain-points for me: the Finnish language, and the brutal winters.)
I think when I did the math, the taxes weren't really all that much higher than the taxes + health insurance costs in the states. It feels more like I'm paying a tax instead of outright fees for some things. Some I don't notice as much - such as the 25% VAT, mostly because it is included in the listed price.
Cost of living is high here, but Sweden is supposedly cheaper. Enough that there is a bus that goes over the border for Norwegians to shop.
https://www.jobbsafari.se/jobb/it/systemutveckling
Most of the ads are in swedish, but google translate does a decent job of translating.
Don't be afraid to apply in english, majority of IT companies does not mind hiring english-only speakers.
Not sure about the rules on getting a work-visa in Sweden.
Also northern lights should be spectacular.
(Source: own experience)
That said, god I love Denmark.
This is what I like over here:
- Big city but you can walk almost everywhere - Weather is great - Airport is 20min subway from city centre - People are friendly, most speak some sort of english - Tech scene is getting better every year - No gentrification yet
There are advantages on being on central or northern europe instead, but if I was in my 20s I would definitely come to Lisbon.
However, if you decide to live outside of Lisbon where rents are very high, that amount of money is enough for you to live well and even save some money if you're somewhat frugal. Also, the weather is usually quite nice here, and if you're into that kind of things, there's a booming tech scene is Lisbon (web summit is here for this week).
Unfortunately, most of the jobs people take here are on outsourcing companies, but there is an increasing number of jobs available on local startups. If you're planning to move here, check jobs in http://landing.jobs/ (mostly startups).
Why throw in 'whites' like it's some derogatory adjective? Are bitter uneducated blacks or hispanics preferable? Besides that, people without a college degree are not necessarily stupid or not allowed to have a voice.
If you just take the above elements of your reasoning, you've just described White flight.
Gun violence in the US is a major problem and our gun ownership and sales policies are at the heart of it. I've considered moving my family away from it long before this horrifying outcome.
The murder rate for whites in the US (i.e. the rate at which whites are murdered) is 2.5 per 100,000 much lower than the overall murder rate of 5.2 per 100,000. This is still higher than most of the West, e.g. 70% higher than Canada. But not the "extreme levels" you referred to earlier.
And you didn't mention guns before, I'm assuming you don't really only care about violence that comes out of the barrel of a gun, and you're just adding this now to avoid discussing the link between race and crime.
I don't view a ton of difference between extremist terrorist conscription and, say, gang violence.
I think many of the same triggers are exploited. And you see those same triggers at play in traditionally white "militia" folks as well.
This is exactly the sentiment that has brought us to this point. Either you are tolerant, inclusive or you are not. Try respecting the thoughts and options of others instead of leveling insults. Equality demands that people that differ from you still get a voice.
US has huge internal markets - I would see this as the main benefit. Otherwise than that, if you make an actual good product, know marketing and are not terribly dependent on US VC money (which is hardly the only source of capital) I fail to to see the problem.
Sure, there are laws for holidays and such but that does not limit business, IMO, only the amount of arbitrary power employers have over their employees. It does not limit global market opportunities in any way.
It would be harder to launch a service like Uber though that tries to take on entrenched incumbent local players. Target global b2b or consumer markets and the problem goes away.
All of this is my personal understanding, and I might be wrong. If so, then please educate me with countering facts.
Most of the big business in Europe is either 1. American 2. state owned or 3. companies founded before before WW1. It's almost impossible to launch a company with a growth rate compared to that of Uber in Europe. You would get kocked down by taxes and regulations before you know it.
I'm in Norway. There is public health care. Sometimes there is a wait, sometimes not. You have the option to pay for private care, if you want. But I'm never going to have to worry about not being able to afford care. This alone makes a huge lifestyle change. Not just for me: But for children and lots of other folks as well.
In addition, some caveats of care are much better here. You can choose the cheaper but better outcomed care option. For example, they send a nurse out to someone's house up to 6 times a day before someone is eligible for a nursing home. Even if you live in a secluded spot on a mountain or island. Why? It is cheaper and folks tend to live longer this way.
You're not eligible for the home health benefit if you need more than part-time or "intermittent" skilled nursing care.
Now, the mouse over says that 'part time or intermittent' means less than 7 days each week or less than 8 hours each day over a period of 21 days or less - unless you have special circumstances. In other words, sure, as long as it is temporary.In addition, you have to be homebound, only leaving for short, infrequent things for medical care, religious services, and the like.
I'm not even sure most folks know that stuff exists judging by how many people take care of their elderly parents. Perhaps it is much like disability and they turn down a lot of people?
Here it isn't a short term situation. You get a nurse for up to 6 visits a day, even if you need all 6 visits every day for 10 years. In fact, you aren't eligible for a nursing home unless your needs exceed this. It isn't so much if you are homebound, but that you need the medical care (though you might be mostly homebound with that).
Reimbursement for a stay in a nursing home would also be subject to a doctor deeming it necessary (and also whatever rules Medicare has about it), home care is just a lower level of care in that sense.
I wasn't really trying to compare the programs, I just saw the possibility in your comment that were not very aware of it in the US.
Reimbursement for the nursing homes... admittedly, most of what I know about payment for american nursing homes is probably rumor, "friend of a friend lost had to sell the house for the nursing home payment" sort of thing. Didn't pay much attention, then was taught the cost in class here in Norway.
I'm pretty sure the market is filled with unregulated niches that don't require you to shift the balance of the universe to be successful.
Yes, US seems to be winning in terms of environment which facilitates the rapid growth of paradigm shifting companies. I did not claim otherwise - I merely countered the proposal that it would be counterproductive to try to do business in Europe altogether. Not as inducive to growth is a different thing from disabling profitable companies altogether.
I'm hard pressed to quantify the quality of public healthcare. Patient outcomes are a different thing than what the service feels like. I agree, it's sometimes painstakingly hard to find good healthcare but in my experience that applies to both public and private as equally - the more rare the condition, the harder it is to find a helpful diagnosis and a plan to proceed.
The professional capability of the tending doctor is the most critical factor. I've met outstanding professionals in the public space and private clinic doctors who have been sloppy and unattentive - and vise versa.
Of course, if budgets strain, the quality of care decreases.
It is hard to take somebody serious who lumps together all countries from Europe. May I ask in which one you live?
My 2 cents.
Also with those fleeing communism as refugees or asylum seekers - i'm born to one of those.
I don't doubt that some people will move, but it won't be to the extent of previous migrations. You have a better chance of changing and fixing the USA from the inside.
My recommendation is get a remote job for a smaller company that will pay you in US dollars. After converting to Canadian dollars you'll be about 30% ahead of your Canadian peers but without having to pay Silicon Valley living costs or immigrate into a country crazy enough to elect Trump. If you can live away from Vancouver and Toronto you can really make that stretch.
Speaking as someone who did that, and is amazed that it doesn't occur to more people. It's not for everyone, probably most people can't just up and move, their spouse likely can't get a job elsewhere that easily, and there is the question of what to do for the kid's education. If you're single though, you're crazy to stay.
Not for long -- America just out brexited the U.K.
- Small internal market
- Less risk-taking atmosphere and attitude
- Lack of money (see point above)
If you're a startup founder and moving its these three points that'll impact you the most. If you're an employee, the significant salary disparity and the number of employment opportunities will be the biggest factor at play.
That all said, I loved staying in Toronto, and I met and worked with exceptionally strong engineers there; it's my plan to move back. YMMV depending on the company you join, and one (sad) issue is that the job pool is thinner - so jumping from one great startup to another is dramatically harder than SF.
This does not apply only to high-income Americans. In fact, the downsides of a reduced salary are much worse for people with average and low incomes.
It's become pretty obvious since the 2008 recession that people of low incomes, or even average incomes, have few means to control the circumstances of their lives. They are at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control. Another recession would victimize them again, and they would be powerless to improve their circumstances.
Americans moving to Canada, whether or not they are high-paid tech workers, will almost certainly take a lower salary in Canada than the one they have in the US, for doing the same job. The safety net in Canada isn't that much better than the one in the US, aside from the obvious exception of free health care. So, a lower salary would be a pretty big sacrifice to make, because it would worsen the problems I mentioned above.
Even in countries where gross salaries are comparable, you would pay a ton more taxes.
Personally is a tradeoff I'm willing to make, as I believe what is sacrificed in financial terms is returned as increased social peace, but of course it's a matter of preference.
I'd break even financially and would have more time to learn the language (though I suppose working in a foreign office would be a great way to learn the language, at least once the basics are obtained).
Want it to be like redneck country? Go to Alberta. Want to be like the West coast? Vancouver. Like New York, try New York lite, though Canada calls it Toronto.
The following things changed for me going from Canada to the US, there are more American Flags.
Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada and I mostly don't miss living in Bay Area, but most of my friends lament the fact that their salary and career opportunities are a joke compared to what they could have in the U.S. (even adjusting for cost of living).